For Your Eyes Only (UK - BD)

Scott McKenzie takes a look at Roger Moore as James Bond, licence to meh...

Feature

Following on from the overblown interstellar action of Moonraker, the producers thought Bond deserved a more down to earth story for his first movie of the 80s. Looking back at the series, this may well be the first of 007’s regular reinventions that we’ve now become used to over the last twenty years or so. However, the screenplay feels like little more than a re-hash of Bond movies that have gone before with one of the least colourful sets of characters throughout the whole series.

First of all, the plot is undoubtedly the most unmemorable from Roger Moore’s time in the series. Bond is sent to recover a decoding machine and there are some run-ins with Russians and ice hockey players along the way, but I’m still struggling to make the story sound interesting and I’ve seen this movie plenty of times. Most interesting of all is the fact that the pre-credits sequence gives us Bond’s final confrontation with Blofeld, who is unnamed for legal reasons. However, no reference is made to this scene throughout the rest of the movie. I’ve heard suggestions that this is a dream, but I didn’t hear any mention of this is in the extras.

It’s because of the over-the-top action of all of Moore’s other Bond movies that For Your Eyes Only feels so dull, but it does have its moments. The scene where Bond and Melina are tied to the back of a boat and dragged through a reef is lifted directly from Live And Let Die the novel and the car chase in a Citroen 2CV early on is exciting enough to hold your attention early on. The final assault on the mountain-top base is overshadowed by Bond’s nail-biting ascent, even if he appears to be able to share exchanges with Topol et al hundreds of feet below.

However, it’s clear that this is the point when Roger Moore’s time as Bond took a nosedive, in no part due to his increasing age. With Bond getting older, the men he hangs around with and the women he beds get older as well, so much so that with the Mediterranean setting you could be forgiven for thinking you’re watching Grannies Gold Wild. This is particularly telling when he’s hit on by young ice skater Bibi and instead of immediately jumping in the sack with her like he's supposed to, Bond tells her to put her clothes back on.

Whether he’s knocking back a nubile young blonde or blowing up the Lotus we all know and love, For Your Eyes Only is an attempt by the filmmakers to give us an anti-Bond film. The only problem I see with this is that at all other times that the Bond series has been reinvented, it was necessary. Licence To Kill gave Dalton’s Bond a harder edge that wouldn’t return until Casino Royale and after a six year break, Goldeneye ushered in Brosnan’s greatest-hits style Bond. The producers may have felt that they needed to get over Moonraker, but For Your Eyes Only wasn’t the best way to do it and it marked the start of an incredibly patchy decade for 007.

Video

I may not think the movie itself is much cop, but I can’t argue against the quality of the picture. There’s more detail on offer here than in the other Bond high definition releases I’ve looked at so far and if you want to analyse the wrinkles on Roger Moore’s face, this is a great opportunity to do so. Colours are strong, most of all red, which stands out very brightly in early scenes. There is a surprising lack of dirt and damage to the print and while there is a small problem with grain in the underwater scenes, I have to say that For Your Eyes Only has scrubbed up pretty well.

Audio

The movie is presented with a DTS-HD Master Audio track and while the quality is clean and strong, no amount of remastering could ever make me appreciate the soundtrack. Bill Conti’s score doesn’t feel like music for 007 to kill people to and the synthesiser tunes have aged very badly. The music is also too loud at times, drowning out the action and dialogue. Certain scenes highlight the fact that some characters' voices were dubbed as well, but this is more a problem with post-production work in 1981 rather than this transfer. It’s also obvious where Bond’s one-liners were added in for comedic effect, most of all during the opening scene.

Extras

The first of three commentaries comes from Roger Moore, who again provides an easy listening track where he comments on the fact that this is the second of his Bond movies to reference his wife and that he was unaware of any conscious decision to give this movie a more serious tone. The second commentary is an edited affair hosted by David Naylor from the Ian Fleming Foundation that includes interviews and comments from John Glen and members of the cast including Lynn-Holly Johnson who talks about the implications of the movie being directed by someone who had previously been an editor. The final commentary is another combination of interviews with producer Michael G Wilson and members of the crew, including Bill Conti who talks about how Sheena Easton got the job of singing the theme song.

The two deleted scenes include comments from John Glen about the reasons for their exclusion, one which would have made Bond even less Bond-like than he already is in this movie. ‘Expanded Angles’ includes one scene that was edited together in two different ways in post-production, which can be viewed simultaneously. ‘Bond in Greece’ is a compilation of vintage behind the scenes footage with commentary by Michael G Wilson, as is ‘Neptune’s Journey’. ‘Inside For Your Eyes Only’ is where the meat of the featurettes can be found, clocking in at thirty minutes and giving us interviews with the cast and crew about how they went back to the original novels after the excesses of Moonraker. We then get a couple of very short animated storyboards of an underwater scene and a snowmobile chase. Finally we get the usual selection of trailers and Sheena Easton’s music video for the title song, which is just the opening titles without the credits.

Overall

I really want to like For Your Eyes Only, but it’s just too boring and generic to stand out in a series that so frequently delivers action and adventure. At least we should be thankful that the producers have finally got the harder-edged Bond right with Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace (I’ll save that argument for another day). I have no major complaints about the transfer and the extras offer a decent insight into the production, even if there are no Blu-ray exclusives.

* Note: The above images are taken from the Blu-ray release and resized for the page.

7th November 2008 7:10#2

For Your Eyes Only was a breath of fresh air after the silliness of some of the other Bonds of the time (Moonraker was particularly idiotic).

The deliberate pacing of the movie really works in its favour and allows time to breathe, which was what the first couple of Connery movies did.

We'll certainly accept that Julian Glover's bad guy is possibly the least memorable villian of the entire series and that the music score is nothing short of atrocious, but these deficiencies are minor.

Rog new that he was getting on a little when he was shooting this movie (the scenes with Lynn Holly-Johnson cemented it in his own mind), but he was still able to cut it at this point. It was arguably Octopussy where his age was starting to catch up with him.

BTW, we'll take the slow-paced stuff on display in FYEO to the wall-to-wall noisy idiocy of Quantum of Solace any day! Yeesh!

8th November 2008 0:04#6

I respect your review Scott, but personally I'd take FYEO over something like Moonraker anyday. I enjoyed Topols performance in the movie. I Thought he was a good supporting character. But to each his own, thats the great thing about Bond, theres something for everyone.

I'd say that they reinvented the series before though with OHMSS. Tonally it feels different to YOLT. Pity there wasnt a proper sequel to Majesty, instead we got Blofeld in drag.

The Wilson Bros wrote:Quote: BTW, we'll take the slow-paced stuff on display in FYEO to the wall-to-wall noisy idiocy of Quantum of Solace any day! Yeesh! Personally I enjoyed Quantum guys, I think I need another viewing though to decide if its better than Casino Royale, which is my #1 Bond movie. Go easy on me lads, you outnumber me two to one

8th November 2008 8:45#7

jmcclane 88 wrote: I'd say that they reinvented the series before though with OHMSS. Tonally it feels different to YOLT. Pity there wasnt a proper sequel to Majesty, instead we got Blofeld in drag.

Very true OHMSS is our favourite Bond movie. It was quite possibly one of the earliest examples of (shudder) a "reboot" to a series - the opening titles hand the sands of time running backwards, whist showing the audience some key scenes from Connery's movies.

Charles Gray was downright awful as Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever (one of our least favourite Bond movies anyway). People savage the Moore movies for having too much humour, but DAF started the trend, as it was written by Tom Mankiewicz, who also penned Live & Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun.

jmcclane 88 wrote: Personally I enjoyed Quantum guys, I think I need another viewing though to decide if its better than Casino Royale.[quote=jmcclane 88 wrote]

Jim, we heartily advise you get get an appointment see see if your current medication needs to be increased...

8th November 2008 8:59#8

jmcclane 88 wrote: Personally I enjoyed Quantum guys, I think I need another viewing though to decide if its better than Casino Royale, which is my #1 Bond movie. Go easy on me lads, you outnumber me two to one

Agreed. I think if you were to put Casino Royale and Quantum together you would get the full story with closure at the end Spoiler (hence the walking on and shooting just beford the end credits).

By the way, what makes you thnk there are only two Wilsons? They're like the Borg - they're everywhere and we're all slowly being assimilated.

8th November 2008 19:05#9

FYEO is quite different from the other Moore films and whilst I normally enjoy to more-down-Earth Bond films there's just something about this film that makes it the least memorable out of the entire series. I think out of all of the films this has dated the worst. Whilst it's hard to quantify where Quantum of Solace stands in the series, the art house film should be noted as a high point in the series.

I must say that the screenshots never seem to show off much of the picture. Is the picture dull or is it just the screenshots?

9th November 2008 1:50#10

scottmck wrote: By the way, what makes you thnk there are only two Wilsons? They're like the Borg - they're everywhere and we're all slowly being assimilated. If that were true Scott they could travel back in time and prevent Quantum of solace from ever being made

Btw Wilson bros, when I'm down at the local chemist I must get you some headache tablets. To soothe you after the wall to wall noise you had to endure

9th November 2008 22:13#11

What a suckfest of a review. Even people that can't stand Roger Moore as Bond keep this movie in high regard. So once again a review here is handed out to someone who loathes the film, basically clouding everything they write on it. Making the net result of it worthless. And a waste of the authors time.

Just give up. Stop handing out review copies to people who hate the films.

10th November 2008 6:55#12

napalm68 wrote: What a suckfest of a review. Even people that can't stand Roger Moore as Bond keep this movie in high regard. So once again a review here is handed out to someone who loathes the film, basically clouding everything they write on it. Making the net result of it worthless. And a waste of the authors time.

Just give up. Stop handing out review copies to people who hate the films.

If you don't like the review, put your arguments forward for the movie. I've got an opinion and you've obviously got yours so let's hear it. If you think you're right and I'm wrong, convince me.

10th November 2008 12:30#13

scottmck wrote: napalm68 wrote: What a suckfest of a review. Even people that can't stand Roger Moore as Bond keep this movie in high regard. So once again a review here is handed out to someone who loathes the film, basically clouding everything they write on it. Making the net result of it worthless. And a waste of the authors time.

Just give up. Stop handing out review copies to people who hate the films.

If you don't like the review, put your arguments forward for the movie. I've got an opinion and you've obviously got yours so let's hear it. If you think you're right and I'm wrong, convince me.

Why bother convincing you? What would that achieve even if that was possible. I was more on the issue of the stupid practice of getting people who hate films to review them. Ergo the review was a waste of your time to produce it, and utterly worthless to the readers here, and hardly even able to be partial on the technical side. I'm not interested in making you like it. I couldn't care less about converting you.

10th November 2008 13:44#14

napalm68 wrote: Why bother convincing you? What would that achieve even if that was possible. I was more on the issue of the stupid practice of getting people who hate films to review them. Ergo the review was a waste of your time to produce it, and utterly worthless to the readers here, and hardly even able to be partial on the technical side. I'm not interested in making you like it. I couldn't care less about converting you.

What's the value in making a point of handing movies out to someone who's always going to love the movie? That would be worthless.

I'm a big Bond fan, which is why I wanted these movies to review. However, I'm not blind and can see the relative merits of all of them. In my opinion this is one of the worst, hence the low score. I think my review was pretty well-balanced and argued and I didn't find it was a waste of my time.

11th November 2008 15:59#15

Sorry Scott, I only just saw this. He's out of line and has been banned for a week. Hopefully he'll use the time to realise the futility of his 'argument'.

It seems the irony of his post has escaped him. If someone writing a negative review of a film he likes is worthless, surely his reading of something that concurs with his own point of view is equally redundant? Unless of course he has low self-esteem and needs constant validation.

Quick Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.